Newspapers and the web

In 1999 I took a year out of the FT to write a history book about work. On my return I was offered a secondment to create and edit the editorial side of FT CareerPoint, a newly established business managed by Peter Highland, an experienced and well respected manager from the publishing side of the newspaper.

It was a separate enterprise within the FT and we were starting from scratch, creating our own website from nothing. The FT already had FT.com up and running. I didn't think much of FT.com at that time. It was an unwieldy, over-engineered, over-manned and over-ambitious attempt to put the FT online that for the first few years of its life drained the profits from the newspaper. Countless millions of hard-won profit went down that particular hole.

Groping in the dark

The real problem with FT.com is that conceptually it was all wrong. Rather than explore the possibilities of this new web technology, the thinking behind it was what you might expect from people who knew newspapers. I distinctly remember David Bell, now director of people at Pearson, then chief executive of the FT, telling the troops that FT.com was going to happen. I'm quoting from memory, so these may not be his actual words, but he said something like this: "We don't know what the internet means but we think we have to be there." It was a pioneering spirit. It was also groping in the dark.

The result was rather one-dimensional. As far as I could see all that FT.com did that was different from the newspaper was to launch some stories faster than the daily publication schedule could achieve and store stories on line for later reference.

Storing stories would have been useful but the search mechanism was hopeless. At last, eight years on, it has been put right and the new system actually works. Hurrah!

Even the faster publication was not so significant a benefit since one of the greatest selling points of the FT was, and continues to be, the strength of its analysis. Any ticker tape can break a story. FT journalism fills in the details and adds a bit more. It is thoughtful journalism, the sort we still need.

I was proud of my time at FTCareerPoint because we tried to do some things that FT.com was not doing. We were trying to utilise the benefits of the web for storing data and lists that could be cross-referenced from the newspaper. We had salary details of every director in the FTSE 100; we had psychometric tests, we had "pass notes" on management gurus: all gone. People wonder why Craigslist is so successful. It is because there is so much stuff there, easily accessible. It doesn't try to be something it isn't.

We weren't afraid of experimenting. I told our web designers I wanted something that was human-looking and did not have lots of straight lines and clinically clicky boxes.

Early designs

I was amused to find this morning some of those early designs. If you look at the deliberately badly-drawn doors and the stick man you can see how that thinking was interpreted. Sadly our drafts were subjected to the scrutiny of the FT.com thought police. We had few friends there. I can't tell you how much they hated the stick man. I can't tell you how much I loved him.

Well the stick man was scrapped, the doors were straightened up and the site went live in late 2000. It was doing OK a year later, just about breaking even, but the FT.com losses and a big fall in the FT share price had led to crisis measures. Many of the smaller satellite projects were rolled up and ours was one of them. We had a great little team and every one of those people left. It was a crying shame.

I left too, very quietly. Even two years later many people on the newspaper did not know I had gone since my weekly column was still there. The FT was good to me. It was good for my career and we parted on good terms. In fact, six years on I do two regular columns and various other projects for the newspaper so it's still an important part of my income and, to be corporate for a second, my "brand". Today I think of myself as a kind of associate member of an exclusive club.

Many readers assume I am an employee. But I am not. Moreover I am proud of my independence. I continue to enjoy my connection with the FT that for all it's failings and it has them, like any family, is still one of the world's great newspapers. It's in safe hands too. Lionel Barber, it's editor, is a very fine journalist.

Magnate for minds

The old guard, or what's left of them, are spread around but they're in places that matter. I keep an eye out for my old friends Neil Buckley in Moscow, Richard Waters in San Francisco and Paul Betts in Paris and Victor Mallet in Hong Kong. A couple of years ago there was an Ex-FT reunion and I was astonished to see so many who had left.

We had some great times in the 1990s. The BCCI story won the reporter of the year award in the British Press Awards. That plus work we did on the Midland Bank and the arms-to-Iraq story won the FT Newspaper of the Year award in the What the Papers Say Award. Those really big awards have been thin on the ground in the past 10 years. But I shouldn't dwell on the past.

The internet is changing the newspaper industry. Some say newspapers are dying. But newspapers will still be there, long after I'm gone because they still work so well. The best of them are collectives of excellence. Today excellence is clustering , by choice, in various areas of the web. News organisations like the FT must learn to draw in that external thinking with a web-based offering that is broader and more immediate than a letters page. Blogging is one way. Instant commenting is another. If the FT can prove itself an accessible magnate for the sharpest minds its future will be assured.

Craigslist and Carnegie

Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian was handing out the honours this week at the annual Workworld media awards run by the Work Foundation. The gathering was held at the London Picadilly headquarters of BAFTA (The British Academy of Film and Television Arts).

He showed a few slides beforehand, highlighting the predicament of newspapers. One of the slides featured a picture of Renzo Piano's New York Times Tower, now under construction on 42nd street, New York. When finished the tower will provide office space for 10,000 employees.

The next slide featured the unassuming San Franciso house (pictured here) that Craig Newmark and his 22 employees use to produce Craigslist, the internet advertising phenomenon that Rusbridger fears is "sucking the life out of newspapers" with its free access and free advertising deal for most advertisers.

Craigslist's revenue is drawn from paid for job advertisements in various cities and apartment listings in New York. If you look at the advertising rates (the top rate is $75) and note that the site gets 500,000 new jobs advertised every month, the revenue model begins to make sense.

Everything about Craigslist (apart from the HQ and the number of employees) is big. It gets more than 5 bn page views a month, 10m unique visitors and places more than 10m new classified ads each month.

As Rusbridger pointed out, Piano's crystal tower is "old economy". So is Rusbridger's salary: base pay up 14.7 per cent from £272,000 to £312,000 a year as Private Eye was kind enough to remind us this week. I assume his £175,000 bonus awarded on top of that figure recognises that the declining newspaper circulation might have been much steeper without his efforts.

I have been unable to find a salary figure for Craig Newmark (here is his picture gallery instead), founder of Craiglist, but, since it is a not for profit venture, I doubt that it will be anything like the $210m that Home Depot paid its unsuccessful former chief executive, Bob Nardelli, simply to go away.

Jim Buckmaster, the chief executive of Craigslist, has bemused New York analysts by telling them that the aim of the venture is not to maximise profits but to perform a service. Newmark himself does not seem to be switched on by thoughts of cash mountains. He says in this Wired magazine interview that the only thing he lacks is a private parking space.

This is described as "new economy" thinking today but it's not all new. Traditional old economy entrepreneurs wanted to make money, sure enough, but what got them out of bed each day was the desire to make a product or service ever better.

That should still be the aim of the "stewards" who look after public companies today. Instead too many of them spend most of their waking hours talking to analysts, journalists and investors as they concentrate on the ever more feverish activity of buying and selling companies while feathering their individual nests.

What remains unclear to me, is whether the new economy idealists will continue true to their vision of democratic open-sourced, accessible, enterprise or whether they will sell out to the multi-car owning, multi-home-owning, private-jet, luxury yacht lifestyle of almost every other status-building materialist on the planet.

I don't include Bill Gates in that roll-call. Whatever you may think about Gates' Puget Sound home, he has committed himself to philanthropic and charitable ventures in the spirit of Andrew Carnegie, the 19th century steel baron whose own ideal of capitalist responsibility was outlined in an essay on wealth, popularly described as his "Gospel of Wealth" in the North American Review. Making your money is one thing. Spending it wisely and judiciously is no less difficult.